I'm pretty sure the person who wrote this has never run pricing research for a brand. Short answer, they can ignore Gabor-Granger because their cost base is so low compared to their revenue, so they'd be looking at Van Westendorp's Price Sensitivity Meter to set a benchmark for where the pricing probably lands, and a conjoint study to understand the value of different elements for segmenting different versions of the product at different price levels.

Obviously positioning, who they're positioning against, how they communicate that, the level to which they're known amongst the market etc all feed in to this, but that'd be a decent starter for ten.

This is an overly simplistic version of where to go with pricing for a brand like this, but that's where I'd begin with creating pricing for them.

Currently using the Superdough and transpiler parts of Strudel as part of the game engine I'm making. God I wish it was better documented though.

Welcome to what happens when everyone optimises for the same metrics, and looks at the same companies for inspiration as to what to do.

At most of these corporations, over time they've learned to be product and financially oriented, because it's what the markets reward and it's easy to do, rather than customer orientated, because as long as they're not unusably shit for the majority of their customers, then that's good enough.

It's an attempt to reverse backwards to the worst possible thing that works, because that gets you more ad revenue, rather than the best possible thing.

I say this as someone who's walked away from strategy consult gigs for multinationals where the objective was literally to do things like this. Revenue and margin maximisation in ways the stock market and PE/VC investment rewards is frequently orthogonal to building the best thing for the customer.